Disaster in Japan

cyclo

Earthquake, Tsunami, and now the threat of nuclear meltdown from multiple reactors. This appears to be a scene from a Hollywood disaster movie only worse. I feel for the Japanese people.

I do think the construction of those nuclear reactors near the major fault lines were a big gamble/mistake. It looks like no amount of technological advancement can fully protect you 100% from the worse case scenario.

Cngevpxhaqrefpber

cyclo

With Japan, it's almost as if they made a pact with the devil with regards to building nuclear reactors. They almost had no choice as they don't have oil, coal, etc. so they had to build reactors to support their industry. Unfortunately it now appears no amount of technical expertise can really insulate you from the ravages of mother nature.

I have also been reading up regarding nuclear power generation and it basically involves a high level of sophistication to keep to keep the process running which is a controlled nuclear reaction to generate heat that ultimately converts water to steam to power those turbine electric generators. The fuel (uranium, plutonium) is highly unstable and once you set it in motion it can't just be turned off with a flick of a switch just like what that wiki article alluded to.

iggy8n

China might just start making copies of Toyotas and Hondas. They could just swallow up Japan like it never existed.

genoski

cyclo

Cngevpxhaqrefpber

cyclo

I'm no expert either and I am not saying we should stop considering nuclear reactors as a source of energy. You are right in that the other sources of energy have their own problems... massive oil spill in the Gulf just last year, pollution/greenhouse gases from burning both coal and oil, etc. However, would you feel comfortable if an old nuclear power plant (with a history of accidents, albeit non-fatal) with 8 reactors within a 20 km radius of where you live is to be refurbished so it will keep on operating for another 10 years?

In IT you experience Murphy's law all the time which is anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. What I am witnessing lately though is a resurgence of Pro Nuclear proponents/shills. I suspect some of these who are generating the "buzz" for a nuclear energy future might be insiders who stand to benefit from doing so. I think this incidence should ignite a healthy skepticism on some of the claims being made and at least ignite a debate on the pros and cons of nuclear power. The worse that could happen is the proponents will make less money in building these plants but the plants which will be constructed are much more robust than was planned in the outset.

Also, what about conservation? Why not encourage people to ride the bike more, drive less, be more efficient, etc.? I realize we live in a consumption based economy but you can only go on consuming for so long before you flatten all the mountains/bleed the earth dry of resources... even Uranium and neodymium (the magnet used in hybrid batteries) are limited resources.

cyclo

Cngevpxhaqrefpber

Wow, look at those shelves...

Cngevpxhaqrefpber

Cngevpxhaqrefpber

cyclo

TechGuy

genoski

Knuckledragger

genoski

iggy8n

Knuckledragger

Just prior to this quake occurring, I saw a news segment explaining that the moon was appearing bigger in the sky because it's variable orbit was currently at it's cyclic low. And that tides were to be expected to be higher than normal, in consequence. (the moon's gravitational pull on the water was enhanced due to the nearness)

I recall this same thing from late 1989, JUST before the Loma Prieta quake.

I'm thinking that the variance in the gravitational pull has some effect on shelf loading, as well as the additional weight of all that water (3" of additional depth, times tens of thousands of square miles) has a demonstrable effect.